Greetings, ----- Original Message ----- > As far as the VMs, I haven't ever used the ovz variety. I've looked > at the docs for ovz VMs, and made a few fledgling attempts, but > frankly, Virtualbox is so quick and easy, a no brainer to set up a > VM on the odd occasion that I need to set one up, and quick and easy > always wins.
So far as I know, VZ7 supports libvirt, virsh, virt-manager and all of the related tools (virt-*, libguestfs, etc)... and I'd rather use a hypervisor that has been built-in to the Linux kernel since 2007 than have to have to download a third-party product and compile a module every time the kernel changes. While there isn't 100% feature parity between KVM and VirtualBox both of them are sufficiently mature. KVM is actually preferred by gamers who want to pass through GPU powered video cards to Microsoft Windows VMs. About the only area KVM lacks is that setting up a bridge device and using bridged networking can take a little effort. NAT is automatic though. I use KVM a lot on RHEL/CentOS, and Fedora-based systems and the tools are fairly well documented... especially when using SPICE as a remoting protocol. I think VZ7 uses VNC which is probably better for lower-bandwidth conditions than SPICE... but once the VM is created, you can use whatever remoting protocol is supported by the guest OS. Anyway, I'm just recommending you learn about KVM and abandon VirtualBox. VirtualBox still has a place on 32-bit systems or where you are downloading an "appliance" VM image already in VirtualBox format... but most of the time when that happens I just convert the disk image to raw or qcow2 for use in KVM. TYL, -- Scott Dowdle 704 Church Street Belgrade, MT 59714 (406)388-0827 [home] (406)994-3931 [work] _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
